Benjamin W. Latham v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BENJAMIN W. LATHAM,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1390, 2025-1391
______________________
Appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in Nos. 23-6532, 24-8210, Judge Coral
Wong Pietsch.
______________________
Decided: July 17, 2025
______________________
BENJAMIN WAYNE L ATHAM , Raleigh, NC, pro se.
ROBERT R. K IEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
YAAKOV ROTH ; BRYAN T HOMPSON, Office of General Coun-
sel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Wash-
ington, DC.
Case: 25-1390 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/17/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

LATHAM v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before H UGHES , L INN, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Benjamin Latham, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps,
appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims denying Mr. Latham’s request to suspend
action by the Secretary. Because we lack jurisdiction to re-
view such non-final decisions of the Veterans Court, we dis-
miss.
I
The present appeal is one of many Mr. Latham has
filed with this court. We explained the relevant factual
background in Latham v. Collins, No. 2024-2253, 2025 WL
733106 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). While that appeal was
pending, Mr. Latham filed duplicate motions at the Veter-
ans Court in two cases under Rule 8 of the Veterans Court’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 8 allows “a party [to]
file a motion seeking a Court order to suspend action by the
Secretary of the Board” during the pendency of an appeal
before the Veterans Court. Vet. App. R. 8(a)(1). Mr. Lat-
ham asked the Veterans Court to “(1) [suspend] the Secre-
tary from conducting [Program of Comprehensive
Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC)] reassess-
ments, (2) suspend enforcement of mandatory in-home vis-
its, and (3) [suspend the] VA’s residency restrictions
prohibiting PCAFC veterans and caregivers from residing
abroad.” Appx 3, Appx 6.1
1 Citations to “Appx” refer to the Appendix submit-
ted by the Appellant with his Informal Brief (ECF No. 13).
Mr. Latham also filed a Supplemental Appendix with his
Case: 25-1390 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 07/17/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

LATHAM v. COLLINS 3
The Veterans Court denied these requests in both
cases. Appx 3–5, Appx 6–9. In both cases, Mr. Latham filed
a motion to expedite proceedings and a motion for recon-
sideration, or in the alternative, a motion for a panel deci-
sion. Appx 1–2, Appx 8. The Veterans Court denied the
motions for reconsideration and panel review because a
single judge review of an interlocutory action is not subject
to reconsideration or panel review; the Veterans Court de-
nied the motions to expedite proceedings as moot. See Appx
1–2, Appx 6–9.
Mr. Latham appealed both decisions; we consolidated
his appeals into the present action.
II
We have limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Vet-
erans Court. Our review of decisions of the Veterans Court
is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “decide all relevant
questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and
statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). But we can-
not review a challenge to a factual determination or a chal-
lenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a case
absent a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2); Wanless v.
Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “While [the]
statute does not explicitly impose a final judgment require-
ment, we have nonetheless generally declined to review
non-final orders of the Veterans Court on prudential
grounds.” Joyce v. Nicholson, 443 F.3d 845, 849 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
III
Mr. Latham appeals non-final decisions issued by the
Veterans Court. He argues that the Williams v. Principi
Informal Reply Brief (ECF No. 25); we do not reference that
appendix in this opinion.
Case: 25-1390 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 07/17/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

LATHAM v. COLLINS 4
exception to strict finality applies. Williams v. Principi es-
tablished a three-part test for deviation from the strict rule
of finality:
[W]e will depart from the strict rule of finality
when the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has
remanded for further proceedings only if three con-
ditions are satisfied: (1) there must have been a
clear and final decision of a legal issue that (a) is
separate from the remand proceedings, (b) will di-
rectly govern the remand proceedings, or (c) if re-
versed by this court, would render the remand
proceedings unnecessary; (2) the resolution of the
legal issues must adversely affect the party seeking
review; and (3) there must be a substantial risk
that the decision would not survive such a remand,
i.e., that the remand proceeding may moot the is-
sue.
275 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal footnotes
omitted). In Jones v. Nicholson, we explained that Williams
is not limited to remand orders, but “extends to any type of
non-final Veterans Court order, including interim orders.”
431 F.3d 1353, 1359 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Mr. Latham’s appeal meets none of these conditions.
Mr. Latham appeals the Veterans Court’s decisions deny-
ing his request to suspend actions by the Secretary. These
orders do not finally resolve any legal issues. The Veterans
Court has not decided Mr. Latham’s appeal on the merits.
Instead, the Veterans Court only issued procedural orders
denying Mr. Latham’s requests to suspend actions by the
Secretary pending appeal. See Yoon v. Collins, No. 2025-
1839, 2025 WL 1765453, at *2 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2025)
(noting that while 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1) “extends appel-
late jurisdiction to interlocutory orders of district courts
granting or denying injunctive relief,” no “similar statutory
exception authoriz[es] our direct review” for decisions of
the Veterans Court); see also Ortiz v. Principi, 76 F. App’x
Case: 25-1390 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 07/17/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

LATHAM v. COLLINS 5
934, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding we lack jurisdiction to
review the Veterans Court’s order to exclude certain docu-
ments because “[i]t [was] simply a preliminary procedural
order entered at the onset of the appellate proceeding”). We
may review Mr. Latham’s substantive claims once they
have been finally adjudicated by the Veterans Court. Thus,
we dismiss Mr. Latham’s appeal because we do not possess
prudential jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s non-
final decisions.
IV
We have considered Mr. Latham’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Because we lack juris-
diction to review Mr. Latham’s appeal, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1390 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 07/17/2025

-- 5 of 5 --